Monday, September 13, 2010

Resurrexit

Blogging is a harsh, unforgiving medium; perhaps like all of them. One has few friends, and, when sorrows come in batallions, a daily circulation in excess of 23,000 can rapidly decline to a mere 5,000 as one's readership abandons loyalty because the unwritten contract has been broken.

His Grace would like to tell his readers and communicants what he has been through, but you would not believe him. It is an episode worthy of Burmese justice or North Korean notions of truth. It appears to have passed, and His Grace has prevailed. He thanks God for his deliverance, and those readers and communicants who have prayed and occasionally enquired. Bless you sincerely for your compassion and intercession.

His Grace's ashes are much diminished, and it will take time to reach optimum reconstitution. But he returns noting that, in his absence and notwithstanding a quarter of a year of silence, he won an award from Total Politics, whose readership still placed him at #11 in the hierarchy of Conservative blogs. It is quite a fall from #6, yet to be (just) out of the 'Top 10' comes as no surprise when His Grace was hastily delated (too hastily [after just a few weeks] in the case of Tim Montgomerie) from the most prestigious blogrolls. Of course, one ceases to be a 'regular read' when one is no longer regularly posting, but Tom Harris MP followed hard upon, and he defines his list by quality as much as Mr Montgomerie does by personal choice. When one loses one's biggest referrers, one is slowly and callously euthanised.

Welcome back. As an agnostic Christian, theological issues matter less to me than cultural ones, in which Christianity still plays a far more vital part than most people realize. Like another here, I should like to hear your views on the Pope, in whom the BBC seems to show only the most facile interest, especially in failing to note that the Pope has much to say on the spiritual and cultural state of Europe, which is weak and unhealthy. But then the BBC would hardly acknowledge that, would it?

"Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devil's schemes. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms."(Ephesians 6:11-12)

It's a relief that you have returned. I and many others have missed your presence.

As to the material for discussion, there's a whole raft of it. Perhaps you could address the morality of Trades Unions and, incidentally, their leadership. What rights do they have to take or threaten industrial action? Are they a higher moral authority? Is it right to impose their members' well-being on the rest of us? Should these unions be held accountable for the damage they inflict upon others in the course of industrial action? And so on. It seems to me that there is considerable imbalance between what is legal and what is moral, here.

This is a welcome return. I realised there was something going on, and did not trouble you or add to the mass of (largely) noise in the comments area during the intervening period.

I have wondered how some 'blogs have thousands of visitors, and suspected it must be through referrals from high-traffic sites. Some of us receive mere dozens of (non-robot) visitors and have few commenters.

The temptation when confronted with the thousands-to-one ratio of one's own traffic and that of some other sites is to give up, so vast is the difference. It is disheartening, and my quality (such as it was) has diminished a little during recent months.

But then I think of the story of the boy and he starfish and I decide to carry on. Therefore, Your Grace, do not lose heart with your own reduction in traffic. If I can keep going, there really is no reason for anyone else to feel low.

As for material: there is plenty around, from Qur'an-burning to the prospects of a faithless new Labour leader.

For the benefit of people who might not know about The Outing of Peter Tatchell, read 'Question: Who said: 'Not all sex involving children is unwanted and abusive'? Answer: The Pope's biggest British critic'

I care not what His Grace decides shall be his first subject for comment, whatever he should choose I will read with interest. I shall this evening gives thanks to The Almighty that what I feared was a permanent cessation to His Grace's peerless and incisive commentary was actually an interlude.

I trust His Grace will be able to show the spirit of Christian forgiveness towards this Doubting Thomas. I had to reconstruct my blogroll and when the cock crowed a third time, I found myself in denial. I have now repented and His Grace is restored.

Welcome back Your Grace. Of course, I haven't been able to check-in each day to see whether your ashes had prevailed, and hence visitor numbers will decline in this manner, along, no doubt with many other communicants.

It was by chance I checked in today.

But I'm delighted to learn that the ashes are back on fire, so to speak, and I look forward to some more insights into the body politic over the fullness of time

Bless you

PS Some Pope bashing, perhaps (oh, what a giveaway....no, unfair of me. I'm sure that he's a very nice guy when you get to know him)

I had more or less given up hope - and had, I confess, removed YG from my bookmarks bar - but still felt impelled to try again on a regular basis. Today, that patience was rewarded. Like so many, I look forward to reading whatever religiopolitica may flow from YG's keyboard.

Phantasmagorical!!!! Welcome Back Your Grace. Whatever you have to say will be wonderful - we wouldn't have kept checking and hoping otherwise, would we?

You're irreplaceable: there hasn't been much out there during your absence. Though I do believe Dr. N. produces another kind of wonderful stuff.

If YG's seriously canvassing for suggestions: I'm inclined to agree with Jim Smiling333: that the land Suwanee and Swamp, Kennedy and Canaverel, Gators and Seminoles - oh, and St. Augustine and New Smyrna - finally merits a moment of attention for something other than Mickey Mouse!Then of course there's the carry-on of 'global banking.'

I can understand that some people are concerned by certain of PeterTatchell's writings on under-age sex. But I don't think you have givena fair and accurate picture of what Tatchell is saying and why he issaying it. The quotes you cite from Tatchell are too selective andpartial. You quote too many of his words out of context.

Tatchell offers a different explanation, which I am posting below. Ihope you might engage with what he is actually saying.

Peter Tatchell writes:

The idea that I advocate paedophilia is laughable, sick, untrue and defamatory.

Unlike many Catholic clergy, I have never abused anyone. Unlike thePope, I have never failed to report abusers or covered up theircrimes. I do not support sex with children. Full stop.

Dares to Speak was an academic book published in 1997, authored byprofessors, anthropologists, psychologists, a Dutch senator and aformer editor of a Catholic newspaper. It questioned ages of consentand whether all sex between children and adults is necessarilyharmful.

I do not condone adults having sex with children. My Guardian letterabout this book was in defence of free speech and open debate aboutthe issue, in opposition to those who said that the book and thedebate it generated should not happen and should be closed down. I wasagainst calls for censorship. Even if Dares to Speak is entirelywrong, in a free society its authors have a right to be published andheard.

My Guardian letter cited examples of Papuan tribes and some of myfriends who had sex with adults while they were still children, butwho do not feel they were harmed. I was not endorsing their viewpointbut merely stating that they had a different perspective from themainstream one about inter-generational sex. They have every right fortheir perspective to be heard. If they say they were not harmed, weshould respect that (while also recognising that many people areharmed by early sexual experiences).

My Guardian letter did say very clearly that paedophilia is"impossible" to condone - meaning that I don't condone it.

Here's an example of what he wrote in the Irish Independent last year:

It is true that I support reducing the legal consent age to 14. But Isupport 14 in order to end the criminalisation of the many youngpeople who have sexual contact with each other from this age onwards.More than half of all British teenagers have their first sexualexperience (not necessarily full intercourse) at around the age of 14.I do not advocate them having sex at this early age. It is best ifthey wait. But I don’t think that consenting 14 years olds should bedragged to court and threatened with prison. I certainly do notendorse adults having sex with young people aged 14.

I can understand that some people are concerned by certain of PeterTatchell's writings on under-age sex. But I don't think you have givena fair and accurate picture of what Tatchell is saying and why he issaying it. The quotes you cite from Tatchell are too selective andpartial. You quote too many of his words out of context.

I missed you, too. Because you never took the website down, I never gave up hope that you would be able to return at some point. I'm glad to hear that your worldly troubles have abated to the extent that you are back amongst the living, so to speak.

Welcome back Your Grace.It's been a bit boring without you & I'm sorry to hear of your troubles, but trust they are all in the past. It's good to have your presence & wit to shine the light on those that hide in darkness once more.Let the trumpet sound, we buckle on the armour of God once more & follow you into the fray.

About His Grace:

Archbishop Cranmer takes as his inspiration the words of Sir Humphrey Appleby: ‘It’s interesting,’ he observes, ‘that nowadays politicians want to talk about moral issues, and bishops want to talk politics.’ It is the fusion of the two in public life, and the necessity for a wider understanding of their complex symbiosis, which leads His Grace to write on these very sensitive issues.

Cranmer's Law:

"It hath been found by experience that no matter how decent, intelligent or thoughtful the reasoning of a conservative may be, as an argument with a liberal is advanced, the probability of being accused of ‘bigotry’, ‘hatred’ or ‘intolerance’ approaches 1 (100%).”

Follow His Grace on

The cost of His Grace's conviction:

His Grace's bottom line:

Freedom of speech must be tolerated, and everyone living in the United Kingdom must accept that they may be insulted about their own beliefs, or indeed be offended, and that is something which they must simply endure, not least because some suffer fates far worse. Comments on articles are therefore unmoderated, but do not necessarily reflect the views of Cranmer. Comments that are off-topic, gratuitously offensive, libelous, or otherwise irritating, may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on any thread does not constitute their endorsement by Cranmer; it may simply be that he considers them to be intelligent and erudite contributions to religio-political discourse...or not.

The Anglican Communion has no peculiar thought, practice, creed or confession of its own. It has only the Catholic Faith of the ancient Catholic Church, as preserved in the Catholic Creeds and maintained in the Catholic and Apostolic constitution of Christ's Church from the beginning.Dr Geoffrey Fisher, Archbishop of Canterbury, 1945-1961

British Conservatism's greatest:

The epithet of 'great' can be applied only to those who were defining leaders who successfully articulated and embodied the Conservatism of their age. They combined in their personal styles, priorities and policies, as Edmund Burke would say, 'a disposition to preserve' with an 'ability to improve'.

I am in politics because of the conflict between good and evil, and I believe that in the end good will triumph.Margaret Thatcher, Baroness Thatcher LG, OM, PC, FRS.(Prime Minister 1979-1990)

We have not overthrown the divine right of kings to fall down for the divine right of experts.Harold Macmillan, 1st Earl of Stockton, OM, PC.(Prime Minister 1957-1963)

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.Sir Winston Churchill, KG, OM, CH, TD, FRS, PC (Can).(Prime Minister 1940-1945, 1951-1955)

I am not struck so much by the diversity of testimony as by the many-sidedness of truth.Stanley Baldwin, 1st Earl Baldwin of Bewdley, KG, PC.(Prime Minister 1923-1924, 1924-1929, 1935-1937)

If you believe the doctors, nothing is wholesome; if you believe the theologians, nothing is innocent; if you believe the military, nothing is safe.Robert Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury, KG, GCVO, PC.(Prime Minister 1885-1886, 1886-1892, 1895-1902)

I am a Conservative to preserve all that is good in our constitution, a Radical to remove all that is bad. I seek to preserve property and to respect order, and I equally decry the appeal to the passions of the many or the prejudices of the few.Benjamin Disraeli KG, PC, FRS, Earl of Beaconsfield.(Prime Minister 1868, 1874-1880)

Public opinion is a compound of folly, weakness, prejudice, wrong feeling, right feeling, obstinacy, and newspaper paragraphs.Sir Robert Peel, Bt.(Prime Minister 1834-1835, 1841-1846)

I consider the right of election as a public trust, granted not for the benefit of the individual, but for the public good.Robert Jenkinson, 2nd Earl of Liverpool.(Prime Minister 1812-1827)

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.The Rt Hon. William Pitt, the Younger.(Prime Minister 1783-1801, 1804-1806)